Update adoptions.yaml

[trishankatdatadog]

Could not find VMware or DigitalOcean adoption anymore. Please double-check.

[joshuagl]

The VMware adoption was Harbor, but that's no longer a VMware owned project – it was donated to the CNCF.

[trishankatdatadog]

The VMware adoption was Harbor, but that's no longer a VMware owned project – it was donated to the CNCF.

That explains it. Thanks! We should still remove, I guess.

[joshuagl]

AFAIK we should remove VMware.

I haven't been able to figure out if the OPAM integration is still ongoing or not. Even if it is, do we consider conex to be a TUF implementation or a TUF inspired system?

It's not clear to me where we want to draw the line with integrations that aren't 100% TUF but are definitely inspired by TUF. The recent Guix work also comes to mind, in that it cites TUF. My understanding is that Conex is ~= a TUF implementation/integration but the Guix approach is only inspired by, though I admit I've not dug into either (only read blog posts).

[JustinCappos]

Okay, what about DigitalOcean?

[trishankatdatadog]

I haven't been able to figure out if the OPAM integration is still ongoing or not. Even if it is, do we consider conex to be a TUF implementation or a TUF inspired system?

It's not clear to me where we want to draw the line with integrations that aren't 100% TUF but are definitely inspired by TUF. The recent Guix work also comes to mind, in that it cites TUF. My understanding is that Conex is ~= a TUF implementation/integration but the Guix approach is only inspired by, though I admit I've not dug into either (only read blog posts).

Agreed. Maybe we should say something like "Inspired by", but not "Ongoing integrations".

[trishankatdatadog]

Okay, what about DigitalOcean?

Can't find any references to TUF or Notary in the current code, please double-check.

[joshuagl]

I haven't been able to figure out if the OPAM integration is still ongoing or not. Even if it is, do we consider conex to be a TUF implementation or a TUF inspired system? It's not clear to me where we want to draw the line with integrations that aren't 100% TUF but are definitely inspired by TUF. The recent Guix work also comes to mind, in that it cites TUF. My understanding is that Conex is ~= a TUF implementation/integration but the Guix approach is only inspired by, though I admit I've not dug into either (only read blog posts).

Agreed. Maybe we should say something like "Inspired by", but not "Ongoing integrations".

+1 from me. Maybe with smaller logos, or no logo, to de-emphasise them?

[trishankatdatadog]

+1 from me. Maybe with smaller logos, or no logo, to de-emphasise them?

Right, and we can even mark some integrations as abandoned (like Rubygems), if so desired.

[JustinCappos]

Let's just remove abandoned things, I think.

I'm not sure what to do with "inspired"... Maybe a separate section, but it feels like we would need them to do a post or some other public mention for us to point to.

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:51 AM Trishank Karthik Kuppusamy < notifications@github.com> wrote:

+1 from me. Maybe with smaller logos, or no logo, to de-emphasise them?

Right, and we can even mark some integrations as abandoned (like Rubygems), if so desired.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/theupdateframework/theupdateframework.io/pull/10#issuecomment-660183201, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAGROD3X3MIQWD4TPCZ3ONLR4BXPDANCNFSM4O2CAW2A .

[trishankatdatadog]

I'm not sure what to do with "inspired"... Maybe a separate section, but it feels like we would need them to do a post or some other public mention for us to point to.

Should we just remove them for now, then?

[JustinCappos]

It makes sense to me. I don't want to be accused of overclaiming, especially by someone in that community.

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 1:17 PM Trishank Karthik Kuppusamy < notifications@github.com> wrote:

I'm not sure what to do with "inspired"... Maybe a separate section, but it feels like we would need them to do a post or some other public mention for us to point to.

Should we just remove them for now, then?

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/theupdateframework/theupdateframework.io/pull/10#issuecomment-660235038, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAGROD3K4WEIMTRRJXUZIK3R4CBSXANCNFSM4O2CAW2A .

[trishankatdatadog]

It makes sense to me. I don't want to be accused of overclaiming, especially by someone in that community.

Ok, let me know what to remove, and I'll do it.

[JustinCappos]

If we're removing VMware, shouldn't the main page be fixed too? https://deploy-preview-10--theupdateframework.netlify.app/

[trishankatdatadog]

Main page content needs update too.

Done. Anywhere else?

Also see https://github.com/theupdateframework/tuf/pull/1086

[lukpueh]

These two links are also broken: https://advancedtelematic.com/en/press-releases/ats-is-integrating-the-uptane-security-framework-for-over-the-air-software-updates-to-connected-vehicles.html https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/blob/master/docs/use_notary.md

[trishankatdatadog]

These two links are also broken: https://advancedtelematic.com/en/press-releases/ats-is-integrating-the-uptane-security-framework-for-over-the-air-software-updates-to-connected-vehicles.html https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/blob/master/docs/use_notary.md

Fixed, thanks

[trishankatdatadog]

All, did some serious pruning, perhaps a bit overboard, but please take a look.

[trishankatdatadog]

cc @mnm678

[trishankatdatadog]

Thanks for the big sweep! There is one link that does not resolve (see inline). Also, would you mind squashing your commits and adding a note to the commit message that explains why you removed certain projects, for each of those projects?

Done